It would not be unethical for Engineer A and his firm ABC Engineering to participate in a design-build joint venture and submit a proposal for the major road transportation project, as long as the state agency approves and the work complies with state laws and regulations.

Peer-review programs have become an important part of the professional practice of engineering. In recent years, various professions, including several groups within the engineering profession, have successfully developed project and firm peer-review programs. These programs have been immensely successful in creating a mechanism whereby professionals in a collegial atmosphere can work together to better understand and improve professional practice. This can be accomplished by analyzing and evaluating the actions, decisions, and techniques of the professional and offering constructive and, at times, critical feedback. Such programs are generally built on a foundation of confidentiality, whereby an individual agreeing to serve as a peer reviewer must sign a “confidentiality agreement” in which the peer reviewer agrees not to disclose information that is revealed to the peer reviewer about the firm being reviewed during the peer-review process. There are sound reasons for such an approach. Firms being peer reviewed should be encouraged to provide as much pertinent, detailed information to the peer reviewer to allow the peer reviewer the opportunity to perform a thorough evaluation of the firm, and confidentiality helps to assure that the maximum amount of disclosure will occur. In addition, confidentiality helps build trust between the parties in the peer-review process and promotes an atmosphere that will improve the likelihood that the process will be mutually productive and ultimately successful. This principle was illustrated in BER Case 96-8. In this case, Engineer A served as a peer reviewer as part of an organized peer-review program developed to assist engineers in improving their professional practice. When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Engineer A was asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement,” whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms. As part of a peer-review visit, Engineer A visited Engine...

Engineer A is a professional engineer and owner of ABC Engineering. ABC Engineering is retained by a state agency to participate in an independent external peer review of the design of a major state-funded transportation project. No confidentiality agreement exists on the project. Engineer A is assigned to serve as the lead engineer on the independent external review of the design of the major road transportation project prepared by the agency. The peer review is limited in scope and focused on clarifications and refinements of existing construction plans and specifications, which are ultimately incorporated into a Request for Proposal soliciting proposals for design-build services to complete the major transportation project. Approximately one-year after ABC Engineering completes the peer review, the state agency issues an RFP soliciting proposals for design-build services to complete the major road transportation project. XYZ Construction invites ABC Engineering to participate in a design-build joint venture and submit a proposal for the major road transportation project.

Would it be ethical for Engineer A and his firm, ABC Engineering, to participate in a design-build joint venture and submit a proposal for the major road transportation project?